La última vuelta de tuerca: hacia un realismo de sentido común

5.4 We propose that the commission would deal with development consent applications for nationally significant transport, water, wastewater and waste infrastructure in England, and energy infrastructure in England and Wales, which exceeded statutory thresholds. It would be able to treat these projects holistically, considering associated works essential to their construction and operation, for instance overhead lines for power stations or surface access infrastructure for airports and ports, where these had been agreed with network providers.

5.5 _{We believe that it is important to set clear statutory thresholds to define the}

projects that the commission would determine to provide transparency and certainty. In some sectors, such as electricity generation, appropriate thresholds are already enshrined in the legislation that triggers ministerial decision making. In other sectors there are no existing thresholds. We propose to set thresholds by

drawing on those which already exist and developing new ones in other sectors. We have not yet decided on the best way of expressing thresholds for all the sectors, but have produced some illustrative possibilities. These are set out in Box 5.1.

Box 5.1

Illustrative thresholds

Energy

(a) Power stations generating more than 50 megawatts onshore – the existing Electricity Act 1989 threshold – and 100 megawatts offshore.

(b) Projects necessary to the operational effectiveness, reliability and resilience of the electricity transmission and distribution network. This would be subject to further definition in the relevant national policy statement.

(c) Major gas infrastructure projects (Liquefied Natural Gas terminals, above ground installations, and underground gas storage facilities). This would be subject to further definition in the relevant national policy statement.

(d) Commercial pipelines above the existing Pipelines Act 1962 threshold of 16.093 kilometres/10 miles in length and licensed gas transporter pipelines necessary to the operational effectiveness, reliability and resilience of the gas transmission and distribution network.

Transport1

(e) Schemes on, or adding to, the Strategic Road Network requiring land outside of the existing highway boundary. This would be subject to further definition in the relevant national policy statement.

(f) A new tarmac runway or infrastructure that increases an airport’s capacity by over 5 million passengers per year.

(g) Ports – a container facility with a capacity of 0.5 million teu or greater; or a ro-ro (including trailers and trade-cars) facility for 250,000 units or greater; or any bulk or general cargo facility with a capacity for five million tonnes or greater.

Water and waste

(h) Dams and other installations designed for the holding back or permanent storage of water, where a new or additional amount of water held back or stored exceeds 10 million cubic metres.

(i) Works for the transfer of water resources, other than piped drinking water, between river basins or water undertakers’ supply areas, where the volume transferred exceeds 100 million cubic metres per year.

(j) Waste water treatment plants where the capacity exceeds 150,000 population

equivalent, and wastewater collection infrastructure that is associated with such works. (k) Energy from waste plants producing more than 50 megawatts – the existing Electricity

Act 1989 threshold.

(l) Plant whose main purpose is the final disposal or recovery of hazardous waste, with a permitted hazardous waste throughput capacity in excess of 30,000 tonnes per annum, or in the case of hazardous waste landfill or deep storage facility for

hazardous waste, a permitted hazardous waste throughput or acceptance capacity at or in excess of 100,000 tons per annum.

5

1 We do not intend to set a threshold for rail projects at this stage as the current programme of investment and improvements to the rail network is deliverable through the permitted development rights of Network Rail or is of a scale that would be unlikely to require determination by the infrastructure planning commission.

5.6 These thresholds would encompass projects with nationally significant benefits – such as major airport and port projects, new power stations and facilities critical to energy security, and major reservoir and waste water plant works. But they would avoid drawing in many of the smaller projects that might have more local impacts and benefits.

Consultation question:

Do you agree, in principle, that these thresholds are appropriate? If not, what alternative thresholds would you propose?

5.7 There is a particular issue regarding the inclusion of projects necessary to the operational effectiveness and resilience of the electricity transmission and

distribution network. Each link of the network is critical to the effectiveness and resilience of the network as a whole, and thus to ensuring that we can sustainably and cheaply transport power from generating stations to customers. The

distribution network, in particular, needs to be robust as new, renewable sources of electricity generation start to be developed to meet our climate change objectives. The planning system must be able to take into account and allow for the full implications of the drive towards a greater role for renewable energy and for a more localised pattern of generation and distribution. In the circumstances, the Government sees no obvious way to draw a line between national and local projects, although we would be interested in views on where such a line could be drawn.

Consultation question:

Do you agree, in principle, that all projects necessary to the operational effectiveness, reliability and resilience of the electricity transmission and distribution network should be taken by the commission?

If not, which transmission and distribution network projects do you think could be determined locally?

5.8 Gas supply infrastructure (eg Liquefied Natural Gas terminals, above ground installations, underground gas storage facilities and pipelines) is covered by a number of consenting regimes with decisions confusingly split between central and local government. As the UK’s indigenous gas supplies decline and we move towards increasing import dependence on gas, this infrastructure is becoming more important to the national need for secure energy supplies. Whereas, for some other energy infrastructure, there are set thresholds for responsibility for decision making, this is not currently the case for gas supply infrastructure as their importance is not necessarily determined by size. We therefore propose that

nationally significant gas supply infrastructure, as clarified in the relevant national policy statement, should be considered by the infrastructure planning commission.

Consultation question:

Do you agree, in principle, that the consenting regime for major gas infrastructure should be simplified and updated, rationalising the regime to bring nationally significant decision making under the commission?

5.9 In line with the Response to the Report and Recommendations from the Committee on

Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) (Defra, October 2006), Government

will be consulting this summer on proposals for implementing a geological disposal facility for higher activity radioactive wastes. Given the scale, longevity and national importance of any such facility, it may be appropriate for it to be covered by these new arrangements. However a final decision on this cannot be taken until the proposed summer consultation on radioactive waste disposal is complete. The Government will consult on the issue of the potential role of the infrastructure planning commission as part of the summer consultation on radioactive waste disposal and review it in light of responses to the consultation. The Government reiterates its commitment to exploring a voluntarist and partnership approach, as CoRWM has recommended, and is not seeking to impose the facility on any community.

5.10 Changing technology (such as for carbon capture and storage) and changing sectoral circumstances (such as increased dependency on gas imports) can mean that there may also be other types of projects that become nationally significant, and may require a national view. It might also be appropriate for the commission to consider applications that, while below the normal thresholds, had potential cumulative impacts with other applications above the thresholds. It is therefore likely that a small number of other projects, not covered by the thresholds set out in Box 5.1, might require national decision making.

5.11 We therefore propose that, in addition to the projects identified in Box 5.1, the commission would deal with any applications for projects which:

 were specifically identified as being of national significance in the national

policy statements; or

 ministers directed should be treated as nationally significant infrastructure

projects. The ministerial power of direction would be exercised on the basis of clear criteria set out in a ministerial statement, or possibly in the national policy statement itself.

Consultation question:

Do you agree, in principle, that it is appropriate for ministers to specify projects for consideration by the commission via national policy statements or ministerial directions to the commission?

If not, how would you propose changing technology or sectoral circumstances should be accommodated?

5.12 _{The Marine (Bill) White Paper published on 15 March sets out a new regime for}

integrated management of the UK’s seas which complements the proposals in this White Paper. A new Marine Management Organisation would generally operate as the consenting body for developments in the marine area.2_{Decisions on proposed}

renewable energy developments over a threshold of 100 megawatts and ports classed as major infrastructure would be taken by the infrastructure planning commission. Decisions on smaller port and marine renewable energy

developments as well as other marine developments would be taken by the Marine Management Organisation. The commission would make decisions on marine developments in accordance with the marine policy statement and relevant national policy statements. Once decisions were made by the infrastructure planning commission on developments in the marine area, the responsibility for enforcing conditions would rest with the Marine Management Organisation.